Politico Article Raises Concerns of Amateur Radio Parity Act

Fix what?

The red herring argument there's something wrong with the wording in the bill?

What's wrong isn't the bill... it's some people's misinterpretation of the words in the bill.

Like suggesting an effective antenna means antenna's that are no higher than a blade of grass.

 

I already answered this.

If that idea is so absurd, then why is it that so many people think there is a problem with it? If they are just mistaken, then FCC could also make the same mistakes. Why not fix that situation ahead of time?

How do you know FCC won't make the same mistakes?

To be fair, you are the only person who made that claim.

 

One might ask, how do you know the FCC will make a mistake?

Yes, the blade of grass antenna example is just as ridiculous as anything else I have read so far, so why not?

 

When the ink goes dry on Mr. Trump’s signature on the NDAA for 2019, A little legal omission that opens the door to outside antennas.

I feel like sharing secrets here On QRZ Would be like Eisenhower mailing overlord plans to Rommel.

 

Why not just make it impossible to misinterpret? Why are you so against passing the best bill you can?

 

How convenient.

 

Pass ARPA into Law.

 

^^^
This is yet again, just another red herring argument presented from those who are opposed to the bill.

Incidentally, the bill is already getting passed the best possible way it can. Just ask Senator Sunshine, he will tell you all about that.

 

Then why not just answer the question?

...but that's not what I'm talking about.

 

There is no question.

Just diversions and red herring statements poised in the form of a question.

 

"Those who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones."
and
"Those who live in glass houses should change clothes in the basement."

Supposition.

More supposition.

 

I see.

Then why not just prove that the question is "just diversions and red herring statements poised in the form of a question?"

I mean, if you are so sure I'm dishonest, why not just prove it?

 

That's not an unknown M.O. for you (and several other deniers).

 

What do they call it when a person makes a statement that puts words into other people's mouths?

No one said you are "dishonest."

Where is it posted where such words were ever said?

Oh yeah, nobody ever said that.

Is this yet another shining example of misinterpreting things?

 

I call people like that "Charles." Your mileage may vary.

... so you didn't post this?

Maybe there's a problem with your status, Charles? You should check into that...

If it is, it's just more evidence supporting the notion that the bill should be changed before passage, to ensure that there are no more misunderstandings.

On that subject, how did you go from:

...to...

??

I'm not opposed to having a bill, I just want one that can't be misunderstood. Why do you want a bill that is so easy to misunderstand?